Big SW specs from Indian Wells courtesy of Greg Raven

http://www.hdtennis.com/grs/pro_racquet_specs.html

Greg Raven has posted some specs from Indian Wells at the link above. Included are some notable men's sticks with pretty high swingweights.

Djokers new Head: 360 grams, 371 SW, 32 cm balance and 51 flex.

That is Sampras territory swingweight, which is interesting given Djokers 'modern', more whippy technique. I've read on these boards on several occasions that high-swingweight racquets may suit those with old-school, flat stroke technique, but not players using the modern, "millenium" forehand.

This perspective seemed somewhat supported by Federer's relatively low swingweight (338 - see same link above) and Nadal's moderate (355 - dido) swingweight, given his build (about the same swingweight at Ivanovic!).

But if Djoker can whip a 371 SW racquet through the contact zone, maybe modern technique can flourish with more hefty sticks after all.


Take it easy.

Many thanks, corners, for posting the link to Greg Raven's site -- it's fascinating to see the specs of so many pros' racquets. Wow, some of those swingweights are high!

Your proposition -- based on evidence -- that modern technique and hefty sticks are not necessarily mutually exclusive is well taken.

Thanks also go to Greg Raven, of course. Good job, Greg -- much appreciated!!

Yes...but thanks to Greg for underlying that one doesn't necessarily need 380 grams rackets for "stability against heavy hitters" (in the 4.0 league probably ...).
Chardy plays a radical very slightly weighted up (330 grams, 333 SW).
So ... while modern technique and heavy rackets are NOT mutually exclusive, neither is stability (at the PRO level) and lighter weight + decent swing weight.
It goes both ways.

P.S. Modern PRO type strokes and 360 + sw may not be mutually exclusive, but "average Joe" modern strokes and that kind of inertia MAY very well be mutually exclusive.
Not every Joe can use the kinetic chain as Djoko does, not everybody has his speed and footwork.
Not everybody has the shoulder turn and preparation he does.
Food for thought....for both camps I guess.

^^Yep, surely we that are not 6'2", super fit and young need to think proportionally. I'm not about to lead up my stick to 371 SW - don't think I could get it around at speed with my short levers.

Of course, with such a small sample size, we have no idea if Jeremy Chardy would be a more effective, sturdier player with a heftier racquet, or if Gicquel would play better if he read a couple hundred of NBMJ's posts.

It probably boils down to personal preference and style of play, and, with the pros, habit. Would a racquet with lower static weight and higher swingweight help out Federer against Nadal? Maybe, but he's played with that stick since he was a kid. And that example seems to extend to amateurs too.

What's surprising is that Jelena Dokic has the highest swingweight at 383 for both women AND men! :shock:

I agree about Dokic. A real surprise. This is also evidence of a point made in another post where John McEnroe is quoted as saying that one of the reasons Federer has the game he has is because his racket is lighter than other players. In terms of swingweight at least he seems to be at the low end for the male players.

cc

crosscourt said:

I agree about Dokic. A real surprise. This is also evidence of a point made in another post where John McEnroe is quoted as saying that one of the reasons Federer has the game he has is because his racket is lighter than other players. In terms of swingweight at least he seems to be at the low end for the male players.

cc

Click to expand...

And yet his racket does not lack the necessary stability to block Roddick's "rather heavy-ish" serving deep with no problems @ under 340 SW.
I guess there are plenty of servers of Roddicks quality in the 3.5 leagues so that people need 350 + sw's to feel like their rackets are "stable enough" for blocking returns .

a question, could be primitive, can racquets have different swing weight given that they have the exact same mass and balance?

heavy300 said:

a question, could be primitive, can racquets have different swing weight given that they have the exact same mass and balance?

Click to expand...

Yes.
If more of the mass is concentrated close to the balance point the SW/inertia will be smaller.
If more of the mass is concentrated towards the "ends" of the stick, the SW/inertia will be bigger, while keeping the same mass and balance point.

0d1n said:

And yet his racket does not lack the necessary stability to block Roddick's "rather heavy-ish" serving deep with no problems @ under 340 SW.
I guess there are plenty of servers of Roddicks quality in the 3.5 leagues so that people need 350 + sw's to feel like their rackets are "stable enough" for blocking returns .

Click to expand...

While I take your point, it would be good if we could keep at least this one thread free of some of the senseless arguments in other threads.

cc

crosscourt said:

While I take your point, it would be good if we could keep at least this one thread free of some of the senseless arguments in other threads.

cc

Click to expand...

Yeah, it would be good. And 0d1n does have a good point. Federer's racquet, even now that the consensus seems to be that we know what that racquet is, remains a bit of a mystery.

My understanding is that stability, which can be reduced to "plowthrough", is mainly a function of hittingweight and racquet head speed. Hittingweight is largely a function of swingweight (although twistweight enters on off-center hits). So Roger's relatively low swingweight of 338 would be relatively unstable at low swingspeeds and very stable at the super high swingspeeds he's capable of on the forehand, etc.

But like 0d1n pointed out, Roger's about the best there is at blocking back super-fast serves with a short stroke. In these conditions, with very slow swingspeed, his low swingweight racquet would be relatively unstable. So he's either damn good, or lower swingweight is ok in skilled hands, or both.

So then we're back to NBMJ's axiom of everyone has an ideal swingweight, beyond which, swingspeed begins to diminish and with it shot speed and/or spin.

However, the TW Professor wrote a post a while back referencing an old study (sorry, don't have link) that concluded that on groundstrokes, where players do not swing as hard as they can (study assumes 50% effort), there is almost no point of diminishing returns in terms of swingweight. That is, the increased energy contributed by higher swingweights continues to outbalance the effect of diminished swingspeeds.

But many argue that today's technique, especially on a stroke like the forehand, where we're looking for maximum speed and spin, requires faster swingspeeds than can be had with 50% effort. So, the assumption goes, swinging at 90-100% effort, one will quickly find the swingweight of diminishing swingspeeds when trying heavier frames. The point of diminishing swingspeed being the "ideal swingweight". And for Roger, perhaps the ideal swingweight for his technique is the rather low 338.

But then you've got a guy like the estimable Craig A. Clark, who started a racquet quest some years back and, if you read through the old review threads, seemed to fall in love with frames with swingweights as low as 313 and as high as 348. Craig has written about his ideal "swingweight range", which is a good deal different than an "ideal swingweight."

What do you think Craig? I assume a player of your maturity has not found different frames more suitable as your game has rapidly evolved over the past few years. Have you simply found that you can play pretty darn well with lighter frames, and, after an adjustment period, ever heavier frames as well?

Or has your technique improved or changed to go along with the heftier frames?

How are your running and short angle forehands coming with the KPS88?

I'm just getting back into tennis after a long layoff and have returned to the game with a frame very similar to the frames of my youth - traditionally weighted players frames. My K90 seems a bit sluggish coming through on the forehand, but I'm hoping it's a fitness/timing/technique issue I can sort out, as it feels so good on every other shot. If not, I'll have to try a lower SW frame.

Does anyone else find that the forehand is the stroke where the point of dimishing swingspeed is found first?

Remember, Federer plays with a very soft stringing, I think 21 kgs was the last I read.

There are some interesting ones in there, thanks for the link corners.

Taylor Dent seems to have changed his racquet, note the comment there on the table.

Also interesting to see Stepanek with a Bosworth covered in Lead tape, maybe he changes his spec by tournament per the surface.

Cheers, Orig

corners said:

But then you've got a guy like the estimable Craig A. Clark, who started a racquet quest some years back and, if you read through the old review threads, seemed to fall in love with frames with swingweights as low as 313 and as high as 348. Craig has written about his ideal "swingweight range", which is a good deal different than an "ideal swingweight."

What do you think Craig? I assume a player of your maturity has not found different frames more suitable as your game has rapidly evolved over the past few years. Have you simply found that you can play pretty darn well with lighter frames, and, after an adjustment period, ever heavier frames as well?

Or has your technique improved or changed to go along with the heftier frames?

How are your running and short angle forehands coming with the KPS88?

Click to expand...

It's interesting, because I did try a number of lighter, ''tweener" MP frames as well as numerous 'light player's frames' (ie 11.3-11.8oz static weight range) without essentially NO satisfying results. I could (and did, in the older reviews you mention) get more wordy, but what it came down to was actually very simple: I never felt fully comfortable to just forget the frame andplay. It was always as if I was 'aware' of the frame.

Frustrated, I put down the ligher MP's and began trying out some heavier mids again. I don't think it is by accident that I worked my way back to the Pro Staff series. The best ball of my youth was played with them. They feel comfortable to me. I KNOW what they do, and don't do. I can 'just play'.

BTW, the SW issue is misleading. A while back Bolt measured the SW's of several frames I really liked and had 'tweaked' to perform their best FOR ME. These included the PS 6.0 85, K90 (US AND Asian), HPS 6.0 95, AG 100, and I believe a Volkl Tour 10 Gen II. ALL measured EXACTLY 335 SW. I did NOT have a 'target spec' when I started. I went by 'feel', something Mojo talks about all the time. So my 'true SW range' appears actually MUCH tighter (the KPS 88 measures 346).

Best,

CC

crosscourt said:

I agree about Dokic. A real surprise. This is also evidence of a point made in another post where John McEnroe is quoted as saying that one of the reasons Federer has the game he has is because his racket is lighter than other players. In terms of swingweight at least he seems to be at the low end for the male players.

cc

Click to expand...

Compared to the other pros swingweight Federer's racquet is practically a tweener.

BreakPoint said:

What surprising is that Jelena Dokic has the highest swingweight at 383 for both women AND men! :shock:

Click to expand...

Shes a beast

Interesting article and stats. It is surprising to see how Nadal has a higher swingweight than Federer. Instinctively you would think the opposite, as Federer is able to flatten things more out and Nadal brushes up to the ball a lot, which you would suppose to be easier with a racquet with a lighter swingweight.

JediMindTrick said:

Compared to the other pros swingweight Federer's racquet is practically a tweener.

Click to expand...

and when you pick up the k90 in a store, it the heaviest there. crazy stuff.

Yesterday I was watching the Federer-Verdasco match and, before reading this article, I was actually noticing how fast Federer swings. He almost seems to be in a rush, although his technique is rather classical, with a blend of modern elements also off course.

But if you compare his strokes with Sampras or Becker, they are radically different in the time between the setup and the swing. Sampras would set up long before ball bounce and then just whack it with a long swing.

Federer always seems to rush the game and play very fast, not only as to ball speed, but also as to the time between the set up and the ball leaving his strings.

Maybe, just maybe, he needs to swing so fast because his racquet is relatively light and with low SW in comparison to other touring pros, although the retail version is considered high in SW for club players. It just shows you how they are two different worlds.

also note than 11.5 oz seems to be the minimum for the men - based on the small sample in greg's table.

BreakPoint said:

What surprising is that Jelena Dokic has the highest swingweight at 383 for both women AND men! :shock:

Click to expand...

I bet Henin had a really high swingweight as well. Remember, a lighter frame can have a higher SW than a heavier frame. I'm betting some of these women's sticks are more head-heavy (or simply less headlight) than some of the men.

Sabatini used to play with a beast of a frame - 14.1 oz. I wonder what the SW was?

Wow! Djoko's racquet has 51 flex! I wonder if the retail one will be similar.

0d1n said:

It goes both ways.

P.S. Modern PRO type strokes and 360 + sw may not be mutually exclusive, but "average Joe" modern strokes and that kind of inertia MAY very well be mutually exclusive.
Not every Joe can use the kinetic chain as Djoko does, not everybody has his speed and footwork.
Not everybody has the shoulder turn and preparation he does.
Food for thought....for both camps I guess.

Click to expand...

and *NO* "average joe" is playing against the types of shots Joker faces. As you said, >>> it goes both ways.

Craig A. Clark said:

It's interesting, because I did try a number of lighter, ''tweener" MP frames as well as numerous 'light player's frames' (ie 11.3-11.8oz static weight range) without essentially NO satisfying results. I could (and did, in the older reviews you mention) get more wordy, but what it came down to was actually very simple: I never felt fully comfortable to just forget the frame andplay. It was always as if I was 'aware' of the frame.

Frustrated, I put down the ligher MP's and began trying out some heavier mids again. I don't think it is by accident that I worked my way back to the Pro Staff series. The best ball of my youth was played with them. They feel comfortable to me. I KNOW what they do, and don't do. I can 'just play'.

BTW, the SW issue is misleading. A while back Bolt measured the SW's of several frames I really liked and had 'tweaked' to perform their best FOR ME. These included the PS 6.0 85, K90 (US AND Asian), HPS 6.0 95, AG 100, and I believe a Volkl Tour 10 Gen II. ALL measured EXACTLY 335 SW. I did NOT have a 'target spec' when I started. I went by 'feel', something Mojo talks about all the time. So my 'true SW range' appears actually MUCH tighter (the KPS 88 measures 346).

Best,

CC

Click to expand...

Hi Dr. Clark,

Interestingly I had a similar experience. I tried a bunch of MP's, mostly leaded them up and I still got back to mids. Actually I sold all of my MP's. I am a lot happier now, I don't worry about my gear anymore but rather about how to improve my game.

I still have to try the KPS, though, but I don't want to alter the "zen-ness of my sameness" for the moment.

Craig A. Clark said:

It's interesting, because I did try a number of lighter, ''tweener" MP frames as well as numerous 'light player's frames' (ie 11.3-11.8oz static weight range) without essentially NO satisfying results. I could (and did, in the older reviews you mention) get more wordy, but what it came down to was actually very simple: I never felt fully comfortable to just forget the frame andplay. It was always as if I was 'aware' of the frame.

Frustrated, I put down the ligher MP's and began trying out some heavier mids again. I don't think it is by accident that I worked my way back to the Pro Staff series. The best ball of my youth was played with them. They feel comfortable to me. I KNOW what they do, and don't do. I can 'just play'.

BTW, the SW issue is misleading. A while back Bolt measured the SW's of several frames I really liked and had 'tweaked' to perform their best FOR ME. These included the PS 6.0 85, K90 (US AND Asian), HPS 6.0 95, AG 100, and I believe a Volkl Tour 10 Gen II. ALL measured EXACTLY 335 SW. I did NOT have a 'target spec' when I started. I went by 'feel', something Mojo talks about all the time. So my 'true SW range' appears actually MUCH tighter (the KPS 88 measures 346).

Best,

CC

Click to expand...

On swingweight I did something similar. I bought a pair of used RD7s a year or so ago and love them. But there isn't much future in playing them, so I tinkered with all my other sticks to try to get the same "feel". In the end all I did was end up with a lot of rackets that, while weighing very different amounts, had swingweights of 350. Whether that gives me the best game, or just the best feeling rackets, is another matter...

cc

Assuming everything posted is true, I am really surprised to see Joker using such a heavy racquet with such a high swing weight. It doesn't seem to suit his style of play: western grip and big cuts at the ball. I guess now we know why he gets worn out.

Such a log of a racquet makes more sense for Murray's style. I'm not sure if I am remembering correctly, but didn't Murray used to the highest swing weight on tour? His racquet is still heavy but I think he reduced swing weight. Maybe I'm just remembering incorrectly.

matchmaker said:

Hi Dr. Clark,

Interestingly I had a similar experience. I tried a bunch of MP's, mostly leaded them up and I still got back to mids. Actually I sold all of my MP's. I am a lot happier now, I don't worry about my gear anymore but rather about how to improve my game.

I still have to try the KPS, though, but I don't want to alter the "zen-ness of my sameness" for the moment.

Click to expand...

Amen! CC

crosscourt said:

On swingweight I did something similar. I bought a pair of used RD7s a year or so ago and love them. But there isn't much future in playing them, so I tinkered with all my other sticks to try to get the same "feel". In the end all I did was end up with a lot of rackets that, while weighing very different amounts, had swingweights of 350. Whether that gives me the best game, or just the best feeling rackets, is another matter...

cc

Click to expand...

I usually feel best when winning.............. CC

Is Djokovic using the high SW to compensate for the 51 flex? 51 is way low by today's standards.

snoopy said:

Assuming everything posted is true, I am really surprised to see Joker using such a heavy racquet with such a high swing weight. It doesn't seem to suit his style of play: western grip and big cuts at the ball. I guess now we know why he gets worn out.

Click to expand...

Good point. Is he the pro equivalent of the stereotypical club player with the heavy racquet who tires out fast? The way he folded in the AO after 1 set was unbelievable for a pro.

Craig A. Clark said:

I usually feel best when winning.............. CC

Click to expand...

Unfortunately I can win and lose regardless of whether my racket is exactly the way I want it.

cc

snoopy said:

A[snip]

Such a log of a racquet makes more sense for Murray's style. I'm not sure if I am remembering correctly, but didn't Murray used to the highest swing weight on tour? His racquet is still heavy but I think he reduced swing weight. Maybe I'm just remembering incorrectly.

Click to expand...

I heard from one of the other stringers -- but could not verify -- that Murray's swingweight is 404.

origmarm said:

[snip]

Taylor Dent seems to have changed his racquet, note the comment there on the table.

Click to expand...

Taylor told me that his old racquet -- which from what I could tell by hitting with it was VERY flexible -- was not giving him enough spin on the ball. He believes that the stiffer frame he is currently using gives him more spin. He did acknowledge that his old sticks were great for hitting flat shots and sticking volleys, but I saw him hit some pretty good-looking volleys in practice, too.

origmarm said:

Also interesting to see Stepanek with a Bosworth covered in Lead tape, maybe he changes his spec by tournament per the surface.

Click to expand...

FWIW, the racquet graphics inside the shaft make it appear that this racquet was designed for Peter Korda. However, there were stickers over most of this graphic element, so I didn't make the effort to get a photograph.

I'm guessing that this is Bosworth's basic "pro" racquet. If you're Navratilova, it gets weighted up one way. If you're Stepanek, it gets weighted up another way.

foul, stimulus, CEO bonuses!!!!!!!........ where are the Morons that say frames do not matter, that pros can generate any kind of spin with any frame it is the string stupid

thanks for the link

Did anyone else notice that this site stated that Federer's racket which in theory came directly from the Wilson Pro Room has specs virtually identical to the retail model?

Greg Raven said:

I heard from one of the other stringers -- but could not verify -- that Murray's swingweight is 404.

Click to expand...

Thanks Greg! So Murray is using the J90

And thanks for your response Dr. Clark!

Cheers

corners said:

Thanks Greg! So Murray is using the J90

And thanks for your response Dr. Clark!

Cheers

Click to expand...

My pleasure! Hope it helped.

BTW, the J90 at 405 SW , RA 67 is a suprisingly plush and smooth hit.

Oh, and I lose plenty too. In fact, I have a theory. If you aren't losing on a regular basis, you are probably not playing enough good players. It took me a long, long time to get good enough to lose to some other very good players. It took even longer to start beating them!!! :twisted:

CC

crosscourt said:

Unfortunately I can win and lose regardless of whether my racket is exactly the way I want it.

cc

Click to expand...

Me too............. I just tend to win more often when the frame is set up the way I like it. CC

I'll keep following the dicussions ...

Schills said:

Did anyone else notice that this site stated that Federer's racket which in theory came directly from the Wilson Pro Room has specs virtually identical to the retail model?

Click to expand...

Oh no, not this again.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=246366

But isn't balance a huge part of swingweight. I could add an ounce of lead to the bottom of my flexpoint radical tour, but the swingweight isn't going up.

Craig A. Clark said:

Me too............. I just tend to win more often when the frame is set up the way I like it. CC

Click to expand...

It would be interesting to find out what factors have the biggest impact on posters' win rates. How many of us keep our win rate up playing on red clay if we normally play on a hard dcourt or vice versa? How many of us find that our win rate is affected by frequency of matches, or immediate conditioning, or who our practice partners have been. I wonder how many of us even play on different surfaces regularly.

cc

BreakPoint said:

Oh no, not this again.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=246366

Click to expand...

The specs are not identical, you need it lighter and more head light.

People continue to forget that it has gut/poly, string savers, powerpads, and the heaviest overgrip there is. That adds a heck of a lot of weight and I have not come across a K90 that is the weight and balance of Roger's after adding all that to it.

All of the K90s I have seen weigh over 12.70z with 17 synthetic, no overgrip, no string savers, no power pads

If anyone knows where we can get the lighter more head light verson please let me know.

Has anyone noticed how dramatically Kuznetsovas swingweight went down???

Indian Wells 2009:
Mass: 336g
Balance: 33.5cm
Swingweight: 328

Pacific Life Open 2008:
Mass: 336g
Balance: 33.4cm
Swingweight: 353


Is it a typo? Balance and weight are the same or almost the same yet the swingweight is way different...

Gasquet's SW is incorrect, Moodie's notes are backwards.

Gasquet plays with the same exact LMIXLT that we can all get, modifications are Leather over grip, trouna over grip, now he uses VS gut mains with Alu Power crosses. He need to try some string savers also.

jackson vile said:

The specs are not identical, you need it lighter and more head light.

People continue to forget that it has gut/poly, string savers, powerpads, and the heaviest overgrip there is. That adds a heck of a lot of weight and I have not come across a K90 that is the weight and balance of Roger's after adding all that to it.

All of the K90s I have seen weigh over 12.70z with 17 synthetic, no overgrip, no string savers, no power pads

If anyone knows where we can get the lighter more head light verson please let me know.

Click to expand...

Federer's racquet is 12.8 oz. He uses a very thin overgrip that doesn't weigh all that much. It's less than half of the weight of the overgrip that I use. The string savers and power pads are tiny and do not add a whole lot of weight. I'm sure he also gets racquets that are much tighter in specs, meaning his are selected so that they are actually exactly to the published specs of 12.5 oz. strung. The rest of us get whatever comes off the assembly line.

hey! i live in the high desert! !

maybe i'll bug mr. raven about the racquets sometime...

jackson vile said:

Gasquet's SW is incorrect, Moodie's notes are backwards.

[snip]

Click to expand...

Gee, I wish you'd pointed this out to me when I was taking the measurements, and helping Wesley remove lead tape from under his bumperguard. Because he was looking to reduce his swingweight, I guess he should have added mass to the tip of the racquet, huh?

Greg Raven said:

Gee, I wish you'd pointed this out to me when I was taking the measurements, and helping Wesley remove lead tape from under his bumperguard. Because he was looking to reduce his swingweight, I guess he should have added mass to the tip of the racquet, huh?

Click to expand...

Lol